43 the Special Commission dedicated a chapter to the facts of the Guerrilha do Araguaia and determined 62 persons as victims, indicated as disappeared victims in the present case.150 116. In addition, in the public hearing Brazil noted that “it reaffirms its responsibility for the violations of human rights which occurred during the tragic episode known as the Guerrilha do Araguaia.” Moreover, the processing of the present case before this Court, in a reiterated manner, the State noted that via Law No. 9.140/95 as well as the Special Commission recognized, domestically, its responsibility for the deaths and enforced disappearances inter alia, of the members of the Guerrilha do Araguaia.151 Among other manifestations, the State expressly affirmed that: [b]y way of the approval of Law No. 9.140/95, the State of Brazil promoted the official recognition of its responsibility on the deaths and disappearances that occurred during the military regime […]; [i]n addition [to said] explicit recognition […] on August 29, 2007, the State of Brazil launched the Book-Report “Right to Memory and Truth – Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons,” during a public act carried out at the Planalto Palace, seat of the Federal Government, with the presence of the President of the Republic, of several Ministers of State, of members of the Legislative Power, and of the next of kin of the victims of the military regime. In this event, the President of the Republic, in his discourse, referred to the recognition of responsibility of the State of Brazil regarding the issue of the deaths of the opposition. [The Report of the Special Commission] contains the official version on the violations of human rights, committed by agents of the State, reinforcing the public recognition of the responsibility of the State of Brazil.152 117. The Inter-American Commission recognized “the good faith of the State in accepting the ‘arbitrary detention, torture of the victims and their disappearance,’ pursuant to the severity and continued or permanent nature of the crime of enforced disappearance and of the extermination policy of the State in place against opposition groups, via the Armed Forces, in the region of Araguaia.” On their behalf, the representatives requested the Court to take note of the State’s recognition of the facts and the acceptance of responsibility, and that the reach of said manifestations be incorporated into the Judgment. 150 In addition to the 60 alleged victims of this case recognized Law No. 9.140/95, the Book Right to Memory and Truth recognized, among others, Messers. Antônio Pedro Ferreira Pinto and Pedro Matias de Oliveira (or “Pedro Carretel”) as victims of enforced disapeparance during Guerrilha do Araguaia. Both are alleged victims in the present case. 151 Cf. Case file on the merits, tome II, folios 553 and 554. Moreover, during the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commission, the State expressed in similar terms, that “[t]he implementation of the Law [No.] 9.140/95 is that the Governor of Brazil assumed de facto the objective responsibility for the ‘politically disappeared,” which includes, evidently, the acknowledgment of civil and administrative responsibility of its public agents. In relation to the criminal responsibility of these public agents, Law [No.] 6.683 of August 28, 1979, applies, which is called the “Amnesty Law,” brief of February, 1997 (case file of annexes to the application, appendix 3, tome I, folio 1716). In addition, the State noted that “[a]t the level of international protection, the acknowledgment of responsibility [effectuated] by the State is considered a relevant demonstration of good faith in the observance of principles related to international treaties on human rights.” The State also requested the Commission to consider “the acknowledgment of the deceased, effectuated by Law [No.] 9.140/9[5], as well as the State responsibility for the practiced acts.” Cf. brief of observations regarding the additional arguments of the representatives, May 7, 2007 (case file of annexes to the application, appendix 3, folios 2675 and 2677). 152 Brief of the answer to the application (case file on the merits, tome III, folios 553 and 554).